Dershowitz and Grades of Human Beings
Alan "Torture is OK" Dershowitz is annoyed that the Israelis have been accused of killing innocent civilians. He is now arguing that there are degrees of "civilianity." He wonders how many innocent civilians killed by Israel in Lebanon would still be innocent if we could make finer distinctions.
(He should read the Lebanese newspapers and he would get the answer. One third of those killed by the Israelis are children. I'd guess they are all civilian all the time. And then there are the families, like the Canadian women, children and men blown up at Aitaroun. I suppose they are really civilians. Etc. )
But I don't know why Dershowitz stops there. Let me reformulate his argument for him. Shouldn't we recognize degrees of humanness? After all, isn't that the real problem? That the enemy is considered a full human being in the law of war? That horrible Supreme Court judgment that Hamdan had to be given a trial of some sort was based on the misunderstanding that he is a human being.
Israeli officials have already showed us how Arabs can be reclassified away from a full "human" category that they clearly, in the view of the Kadima government, do not deserve.
For instance, Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman angrily denounced Kofi Annan for neglecting this key fact. The Guardian reports, ' Mr Gillerman said "something very important was missing" from Mr Annan's speech: any mention of terrorism. Hizbullah were "ruthless indiscriminate animals", he told reporters. '
So you see, one reason that you can just bomb the hell out of the Lebanese in general is that they aren't human beings at all. They are "animals." You might quibble that Gillerman is only referring to members of the Hizbullah party as animals, not all Lebanese. But most Shiite Lebanese, some 45 percent of the population, support Hizbullah. And the Lebanese government, made up of Christians, Sunnis and Druze, let Hizbullah into the Lebanese government and gave it cabinet posts. So probably those who tolerate Hizbullah are at most half-human. This has yet to be worked out. It might be possible to declare them .66 animal. Or maybe they are just all animals. They speak Arabic, after all, right Mr. Gillerman?
There is a problem with stopping here, however. It is not enough to reclassify some human beings as animals. After all, you have to treat animals humanely. You can even be fined for mistreating an animal, though probably you would not go to jail.
The staff of US Secretary of State Condi Rice has made a suggestion for another, more convenient level, that of snake. Thus, a senior White House official referred to the massive Israeli bombing campaign and destruction of Lebanon's civilization and killing of hundreds and wounding of over a thousand as "defanging" Hezbollah. I am pretty sure that language is meant to suggest that the Shiites of Lebanon, although apparently human beings, are actually snakes. I suppose it is possible that another sort of reptile is is intended, but I suspect that "snake" is the intended classification.
But some snakes are protected species. We need a lower category. It is clear that some human beings are neither human nor animal. Hamas and Hizbullah members, for instance, are actually not even full organisms, just diseases.
Israeli Deputy Consul General for San Francisco, Omer Caspi, said of the Lebanese and Palestinian publics concerning Hamas and Hizbullah members, "We say to them please remove this cancer off your body and soul before it is too late."
Caspi did not specify whether members of Hamas are leukemia and those of Hizbullah melanoma, or the reverse.
The good thing about finding out that some apparent human beings don't have to be treated as well as whales (which have almost been wiped out) is that it allows us to put behind all wimpy hesitancy just to do what needs to be done.
I mean, a cancer. Everyone knows what you have to do with a cancer. It requires chemotherapy. It needs to be just exterminated, before it kills the snakes, animals and humans.
So we have the human beings, like Israeli Prime Minister Ehud "Bomb'em Back to the Stone Age" Olmert and torture defender, attorney Alan Dershowitz.
Then we have the animals, like the "persons" who vote for Hizbullah and Hamas.
Then we have the level of human-appearing snakes, who need to be "defanged," which apparently involves killing their wives and children with air strikes.
Then we have the cancers, who need to be "wiped out" immediately.
I understand that President Bush is appointing Alan Dershowitz to be head of the "Human-Non-Human Metrics" commission that will decide which people are full human beings, and which fall into other categories, such as "animal," "snake," and "cancer."
It is rumored that that Dershowitz intends to create a special category, of "cockroach," for the human-appearing creatures who dare to criticize him.

|
23 Comments:
Dear Professor Cole
You are to be congratulated on your admirable restraint in not using the word Untermensch in your piece.
I wonder if this might not however impede students of hisory and international relations from understanding where Professor Dershowitz logic might lead.
So at risk of ostracism and waves of criticism from the sopisticated, here is the Wiki link to the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch
The unfortunate thing about referring to people as some sort of animal is it excuses all-too-human behaviours, the likes of which no animal or "lower" form of life would adopt or display. Other than humans, the creatures act from a need to survive or to defend, not usually out of malice or any other fratricidal impulses. While there are many several zoological gardens throughout the World, the existence and perpetuation of prisons serves much the same purpose, putting on display most of the worst human behaviours for any and all to see, for sociologists, psychologists, and others to analyze and categorise. It is to these reference points that one needs to refer to avoid mixing platypuses and eels, kangaroos and crickets, moving beyond the old apples and oranges differentiating comparisons.
The problem with Dirst Fo' Wits is he is somehow immune from his own suggestion that some people are more or less "civilian." Not being part of the categorisation process, we can only wonder where he would find himself fitting in. Lacking heroism as part of his CV, his inclusion in the "warrior" would be denied, leaving him somewhere in the rear scrubbing skivvies or stirring stew, among other wrist-strengthening exercises. As he has seen fit to not involve himself in the hostilities but has taken sides (refuted by the likes of Finkelstein) while being able to lurk behind his rock or pot, avoiding the nastiness of conflict.
Of course any enemy is going to be less than "human," as one side or another is going to regard the foes of each. Only those on the winning heroic side AND active participants are the real HUmans! This is, as we know, quite atavistic in practice, harkening back to the old days when some's antecedents wore skins and speared their hairy beasts, killing like-specied rivals in order to secure the rights over the womenfolk. Inasmuch as the human is about the only member of the animal kingdom that hunts its own kind for sport (and armed conflict IS a sport), we have to wonder how far these folks are away from having been cannibals. The usual rule for hunters is to only kill what one has to eat. Satisfying a blood lust for one's own sort is a bit troubling on this note, the kind shattering eardrums and window panes, scratching chalkboards, or shifting without using the clutch. There is a lack of sensibility or sensitivity, creating a shock to the senses whenever something unnerving occurs.
A Jew espouses a new racial theory of menschen unter to uber? More than mere chutzpah..mishigas!
Less egregious substantively similar, the commnents of the bleached blonde anchorFace on MSNBC who asked a correspondent:
Hamas and Hezbollah what kind of democracy, what kind of people elect people like that!?
Doubtless one of the lower orders...somewhere just below the Pole but above gypsies, jews, Communists Russians, assorted Slavs, homosexuals???
Actually, Dershowitz (like the IDF) doesn't agree that children are all civilian all the time:
"Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks."
Does a Dershowitz really want to argue that the moral value of a victim varies accordingly as he gets killed collaterally or she gets killed deliberately? I have to doubt it.
Thank you, Juan. Sometimes sarcasm is the only fitting response.
War makes people insane.
He walks, he talks, he crawls on his belly like a Republican!
Thank you for posting this. It is these kinds of things that make me tell my husband we need a back up plan in case we need to flee quickly.
We have had to move twice already because of issue caused by this kind of ignorance. Racial profiling, egging our home and cars, people refusing to seat us in restaraunts and if they do filming us from outside so they have "proof" of us doing something wrong, calling our children (at the time younger than 6 yo) terrorists in training, ect.......
I have tried to read Dershowitz's "Case for Israel", but found it so much like Sarmiento's "Faucundo" that I could not stomach it. I have reached the conclusion the man is a racist on a level only slightly better than the Nazis.
I have nearly finishted Finkelstein's reply, "Beyond Chutzpah". Along the way, I have decided that the "New Antisemitism" is the hatred of the other Semites, ie. the Arabs. Sadly, for many of us, one antisemitism fuels the other in a cyclical pattern.
Professor Cole, your whole dehumanization rap doesn't really answer some of Professor Dershowitz's fairly common-sense points. A "civilian" who willingly and proudly lets Hizbullah put a rocket launcher in his backyard, doesn't forfeit his humanity, but he does forfeit the right to complain if the rocket launcher gets destroyed taking his house with it. Dershowitz's point is that simply referring to such a person as a "civilian" obscures reality.
"But I don't know why Dershowitz stops there. Let me reformulate his argument for him. Shouldn't we recognize degrees of humanness?"
From here this outstanding essay waltzes merrily through satire and critique. If only George W. Bush, the President of the United State of America, could understand it.
I said it was satire, but that may not be accurate, because although it has the appearance of satire, it does something satire does not. It states the obvious.
The purpose of satire is to advance a concept past the censor which we all carry around with us. The censor prevents us from recognizing certain ideas that conflict with our self-imposed belief systems. An example might be Steve Bell's (UK Guardian) wonderful cartoons depicting GWB as a chimp. At first we all thought it was ridicule through exaggeration; now we know, tragically, that GWB is basically what Bell has been telling us all along, an ape mimicing the movements of a human.
Back to Cole: This essay tells us that to right-wing Israelis and their defenders, Arabic speaking, olive skinned people are not human but rather animals. A few years ago we might have considered these to be exaggerations. Now we have come to recognize that their attitudes, as evidenced through the incipient genocide of this war, is closer to what Cole represents. They may not be aware of the extent of their moral decline. We can help with that.
This essay is not exaggeration and it is not satire. It is a dead-on accusation.
Excellent post, Mr. Cole. I could not agree more. There is a despicable effort by supporters of Israel to dehumanize and justify the killing of the innocent victims of this criminal bombing campaign.
A former Israeli tank commander explains to me why he had no problem firing a high explosive shell into a Palestinian tenemant:
"Palestinians aren't human. They're dirty smelly savages, cockroaches on two feet. We ought to exterminate them all." Yes, that's how Israelis think about Palestinians and Lebanese. Those nasty untermenschen are not God's chosen people, they're ugly nasty bad-smelling Arabs, thus they don't count as human.
Israel was formed as a reaction against the ethnic and religious-based genocides of Hitler's murderous regime. Now it appears that Israel itself is set to commit ethnic and religoius-based genocides. Congratulations, Israel. You have become that which you hate.
-BT
If you think that Dershowitz is over the top with his 'civilianity' diatribe, you should attend some of his lectures and his displays of outright racism. Then again why should he be different from his spiritual soulmates who voiced the same opinion - Meir, Begin, Shamir and others. I wonder if the concept of 'civilianity' or lack thereof could be applied to the Irgun or the Stern Gang when the Brits classified them as terrorists
"Israel was formed as a reaction against the ethnic and religious-based genocides of Hitler's murderous regime. Now it appears that Israel itself is set to commit ethnic and religoius-based genocides. Congratulations, Israel. You have become that which you hate."
No, not at all. Zionism simply takes the racial theories of "blood and soil" and purports to make the Jews their beneficiary instead of their victim.
Same principles, different group.
I think a singnificant problem lays in the current intellectual framework. The logical problem with monotheism is that the absolute isn't an apex, but the basis. It is the neutral state, not a defined set. Zero, not one. Therefore the spiritual absolute would be that essence of being we rise out of and fall back into, not some higher entity we fell from and seek to return to.
Knowledge is simply a process of making distinctions and judgements. Good and bad are not some top down metaphysical dual between the forces of light and darrkness, but the bottom up biological binary code.
Even atheists equate consciousness with intelligence, when it manifestly isn't so, as evidenced by the political class every day.
It might seem futile to argue religion, but the current model of interpreting a universal state of oneness as a unitary set of one is reaching its ultimate conclusion and hopefully we do better next time.
"A "civilian" who willingly and proudly lets Hizbullah put a rocket launcher in his backyard, doesn't forfeit his humanity, but he does forfeit the right to complain if the rocket launcher gets destroyed taking his house with it. Dershowitz's point is that simply referring to such a person as a "civilian" obscures reality."
More than the house would get destroyed in such an event: The children in the house, the neighboring house/houses and the children they contain. International law is very clear on when not to bomb. And we can certainly ask how often such a bombing has taken place. Such bombings perhaps explain the bombing of the airport? The powerplant? A Christian neighborhood? Convoys of fleeing people? I think not.
Such nonsense is frightening enough when it's uttered by Mr. Dershowitz.
It becomes perilous when it is incorporated into our own foreign policy and expounded by our Ambassador to the United Nations:
http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/07/assholes-asshole.html
-
More than the house would get destroyed in such an event: The children in the house, the neighboring house/houses and the children they contain. International law is very clear on when not to bomb.
I don't think so. I think it is rather murky, actually. The "dual-use target" has to be making an "effective military contriubtion," as a recent BBC article explained. Would you like to outline some criteria for an "effective contribution"?
And we can certainly ask how often such a bombing has taken place. Such bombings perhaps explain the bombing of the airport? The powerplant? A Christian neighborhood? Convoys of fleeing people? I think not.
Try the following as a start:
http://volokh.com/posts/1153318159.shtml
Mr. Goodman:
Actually, I do believe Prof. Cole nailed it right on the head. You imagine that the civilians in Lebanon are willfully allowing Hizbollah in their homes. But is that the case? Where did you get that information, IDF? They are not the most neutral of information sources.
The simple fact is that Lebanese Shiites see Hizbollah as their only defense; they no more believe in the Lebanese government than Israel does. They have suffered 18 years of often brutal Israeli occupation; that's why they hide behind Hizbollah. They act out of fear, just as Israelis do. Your problem is that you refuse to attach simple human emotions to those which Israelis too often simply dismiss as "those Arab dogs".
If you refuse to understand the motivations behind the Shia support for Hizbollah, you will never win this war. You can only undermine Hizbollah by providing for the people of Lebanon what Hizbollah does: security (of a kind) and food on the table. You can kill as many of them, but unfortunately there isn't a finite number of them (unless you're willing to engage in open genocide).
If we have degrees of civilianness in lebanon, I wonder of Mr Dershowitz accepts the same principle for American citizens. If so, how many people murdered at the twin towers or the pentagon also had degrees of civilianness?
"Yes, that's how Israelis think about Palestinians and Lebanese. "
No, that's how SOME Israelis think of them. And under sustained hate and terrorism, nost people will let their humanity slip. Rember too, many many Arabs believe tghe swame about Jews and want them driven into the sea. A great deal of the language used about Jews and Israelis is siteful racism.
We all need to remember our shared humanity of we wish to avoid the rise of another nazi-like menace.
There is a psychological justification for calling a dog a bad name and killing it in the process. Why not call or regard the Islamists animals, cancer, etc., so they can easily be terminated. Some animals like cancer are better off eliminated, even at a cost. Prof. Dershowitz and his cohorts may agree.
Of course there is a continuum of humanity based on individual guilt or innocence. Every system of moral philosophy distinguished between the guilty and the innocent and understands that these terms are rarely absolute. A terrorist who targets innocent babies is on the inhuman end of the continuum while the baby he targets is on the human end. What the Nazis did is to impose a continuum of human it based not on individual guilt or innocence but rather on racial characteristics, religion, etc. That placed their leaders—Hitler, Goering, etc—on the inhuman end. Anyone who can’t see the difference is either a fool or a knave.
I see Mr. Dershowitz chimed in above me.
Of course there's a difference between a baby and a terrorist. However, you're citing a black and white difference when your theory is supposed to address the "gray area," things like terror supporters. If all you can do is bring me fallacious logic, you've got another thing coming.
So the Nazis, as you said, discriminated by race and religion, and your proposal goes by politics. How is that an improvement?
Post a Comment
<< Home